Dina Pule’s nepotism only the tip of South Africa’s corruption iceberg

Elaborate methods are used by South African civil servants, politicians and even headteachers to extract public money into their own pockets. The latest incident of corruption saw Dina Pule, South Africa’s former Minister for Communications giving her boyfriend’s company a R6 million tender — yet her punishment consisted of being publicly reprimanded and fined one month’s salary. Even South Africa’s president has been accused of corruption — so how deep does the problem go and what is being done about it?

PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma, who has never successfully been charged with any of the numerous allegations made against him, among them fraud, money laundering, corruption, racketeering and rape, recently reassured South Africans that â€œYou will be pleased to hear that South Africa is not the most corrupt country in the world.”

But from Zuma’s cabinet, to the state-owned Transnet Freight Rail and South African Airways, a huge network of public figures have been implicated in corruption allegations. Heads roll on a regular basis amid accusations of fraud and dishonesty.

The latest to go, albeit for only 15 days, is Dina Pule, the former Minister for Communications who consistently lied about the nature of her relationship with her boyfriend Phosane Mngqibisa, who accompanied her on work trips abroad costing the public thousands of rands. She also bestowed on his company a R6 million contract to manage fan parks during the 2010 World Cup.

The dossier at the heart of the case implies that Pule was embarking on a nepotistic mission to fill her department with close political allies and that there was much discord within the current staff. It is four years since Mngqibisa first accompanied her on a trip, and as well as the loss of her MP privileges for 15 days, Pule was publicly reprimanded in parliament and was fined one month’s salary for actions she termed â€œa mistake.”

Sparking outrage among commentators, Pule’s halfhearted apology has been seen as a small example of the double standards practised by politicians. Questions have arisen over why she will not face corruption charges from the National Prosecuting Authortity.

Nepotism and systematic abuse of parliamentary privileges are, however, by no means exclusive to South Africa. This came to light in the UK in 2009 after The Daily Telegraph exposed a string of elaborate methods of deception that allowed MPs to claim for renting, furnishing and redesigning second homes, nepotistic behaviour and overspending their allowances. Seven MPs faced short jail sentences, but many were fined, and either chose to resign or were forced to leave their positions.

It sparked an inquiry where the word of the day was â€œtransparency”, and while some money was reclaimed, no attempts were made to stop MPs from paying family members to work for them, a recurring abuse in the expenses scandal. Some resolutions were put into place to stop MPs taking advantage, but with invoices from Tony Blair â€œaccidentally shredded” before they could be processed, how effective those changes will be when the consequences seem to be only making an example, is debatable.

According to Willie Hofmeyr, head of the Special Investigating Unit, the main body in charge of fighting corruption in South Africa, similar behaviour is commonplace in the higher reaches of the public sector. He suggested that 400,000 civil servants could be falsely claiming benefits, and exposed a trend amongst officials to take part in ‘collusion’, the fixed inflated rate charged by suppliers, arranged in cohorts with officials.

Corruption in South Africa takes two common forms: tenderpreneurism, the buying of political influence; and BEE Fronting, an abuse of the rules governing the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) act, originally created post-apartheid to improve opportunities for black people, but which has been used to qualify a company for government contracts in terms of BEE by giving eligible persons a seat on the Board of Directors while having no decision-making power in the company.

Zuma has commented that, â€œThe fight against corruption continues to be intensified in the public sector,” yet he is not a shining example. In 2005, businessman Schabir Shaik was jailed for 15 years for paying off Zuma’s personal debts, effectively buying himself political influence with the then-deputy president.

However, Shaik was released after serving only two years and four months, on grounds of poor health, sparking speculation amongst critics that Zuma’s political clout may be at work. Opposition parties have condemned this, drawing attention to the many prisoners dying of AIDS in South African prisons who despite terminal illness have not been considered for medical parole. Terminal illness is supposed to be the only reason for early release on these grounds, yet the hypertension, or high blood pressure, that Shaik suffers from is common in men his age and not considered life threatening.

Golden Miles Bhudu, the president of South African Prisoners Organisation for Human Rights, said that he hoped other prisoners would have access to the same privileges as Shaik. â€œAbout 2,500 inmates who died last year because either prison officials were negligent or did not make recommendations. We hope they will also consider the other [sick] inmates.”

The ANC has been known to look after its allies, whether that means putting loyal members in high positions despite poor performances, or foregoing the punishment that would be served to an ordinary citizen.

Yet even the opposition who condemn such practices have been known to compromise their integrity.

Julius Malema, former ANC Youth League head and present leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, has been accused of similar behaviour to his ANC competition. A R52 million tender was reportedly claimed by On-Point Engineers, of which Malema was one of two shareholders, from the Limpopo roads and transport department.

The corruption allegations against Malema have resulted in criminal charges and the reclamation of property, which have damaged his reputation and credibility over the last year.

Although Zuma claims that he is doing everything in his power to bring an end to institutional fraud, the real work is being done by civic society groups. Organisations such as the NGO CorruptionWatch are seeking to empower South Africans to speak out when they see fit, most importantly if it is in their domestic sphere.

Since its launch in January 2012, CorruptionWatch has campaigned in two main areas: anti-bribery and corruption in schools.

It has set out guidelines for parents who suspect corruption at their schools: advising that anything suspicious be reported to the school’s governing body. It passes through a chain from principal to district department, whose responsibility it is to investigate, and ultimately reaches provincial authorities. Acknowledging that figures from all levels could be involved, it recommends telling a trusted teacher, who could go direct to the provincial department.

A CorruptionWatch investigation found that one Soweto headteacher had cashed 41 cheques totalling R134 487. Whilst some cheques were whitewashed for the â€œfeeding of learners” there were no invoices to match. Fake invoices were discovered, and genuine invoices had been tampered with, in a web of deception also implicating the chair of the school governing body who benefited financially from the practice.

Corruption Watch invites members of the public to report suspected corruption via its website (www.corruptionwatch.org.za) – it has received over 4,200 complaints on corruption and related matters since its launch.